Should the Dehlin/Rosebud drama be deleted?

[drumdude]

The top of page 7:

Each time Dehlin makes a claim about something great he's done or tries to publicly distance himself from something he says he did not do, it's worth taking a few seconds to reality check.

Dehlin's resume items are often other people's work. This tendency to take credit for work he did not do (and I am not speaking only of claims he has made to my work, but also claims he has made to many other people's work) and his ability to convince the public that he really is the man who made so much happen is, frankly, pretty fascinating (if not disturbing and disconcerting).

This capacity to very publicly and repetitively make statements about the self that are not exactly accurate is, I'd think, fairly rare. It takes a lot of a certain kind of guts to make so many bold statements that other people know to be false.

I think that if someone were really to spend the time to investigate, it would be found, in general, that Dehlin both tightly controls projects he won't claim to own and that the people doing the real work on the projects Dehlin often takes credit for wouldn't give him any credit at all. Most leaders (including myself, but not only me) aren't often willing to challenge him publicly because public challenges are fairly inappropriate and challenging someone who is so powerful is not only risky should he retaliate, but is like hitting one's head against a brick wall. He doesn't and won't listen and directly denies actions he has directly taken.

For example, after his late withdrawal from the 2014 Sunstone Symposium - because I was presenting with Mormons Building Bridges and he didn't want me there - and the setting up of two competing events, he claimed his support for Sunstone. It took a lot of convincing to get him to change his second event so that it wasn't happening at the same time as the symposium, but what is Sunstone supposed to do? Advertise how difficult it is to work with John Dehlin and tell everybody what is going on behind the scenes?

Another example: I have asked him not to take credit for Circling the Wagons on more than one occasion and he knows that I am not someone to mess around with, but somehow he keeps mentioning the project on his resume. It creeps back in again. I have asked him to give back or at least allow me to advertise in the Mormon Stories Communities I founded, and he just says he can't because Mormon Stories doesn't own them. It's personal revenge that he won't admit to having taken and that he pretends isn't happening. All the while, the groups I founded sit listed on his website and I am not even allowed to join them should I need to post a question in a city about something I'm working on. It's ridiculous, but it doesn't matter because he is the person who has the power to control the conversation. He knows his power and uses it, very effectively.

Dehlin has learned, I think, that falsely padding and removing from his resume is pretty easy to get away with. Even if he is called on the tendency in threads like this one (that will ultimately come to be of little importance), most people will continue believe that most of what he presents to the public is an accurate representation of what is really going on. It just isn't.... but he is believed because there are very few people who are able to so convincingly make false statements and even fewer people who will make them publicly and repetitively even when they know they might be called out on their falsehoods. The idea that he isn't speaking truthfully just seems too preposterous to be true to most people who can't put themselves in the shoes of someone who might actually try these tactics. People also seem to believe it's impossible for him to be doing these things because it would be impossible for them (as it would be for most of us) to do them. And besides, he seems like such a nice guy.

And why should he be worried? No matter what happens, there are new people who will have never read threads like this one or never had a bad experience with him who will believe him. It's a strategy that works. There will always be new Mormons in crisis. This is a long term plan.

There is a lot of power in having the gall to make false statements about the self and having the statements become the reality the public believes. After a while, I think, some public figures get so used to their influence that they begin to feel like it's their role to create the reality people follow. The sensation must be pretty incredible and, likely, addictive.

That's probably how the Q12 feel, no? What would it be like to have the things you say be god's word on the matter and to have so many hundreds of thousands of people believe you?

Much like with Kamp, Rosebud’s first complaints about John were that of a disgruntled employee. Then when that didn’t garner enough sympathy, the abuse claims began.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

I don't think this kind of decision should be made by public vote at all. Shades owns the board. It's not a democracy. The fact that Rosebud has been allowed to post here since before I joined the forum before this one seems like it should be weighed heavily in her favor. Why is banning her suddenly on the table now? And why is it up for a vote?

I also note that those most loudly calling for Rosebud to be ousted are the same people who most often engage with her. There is a really easy way to avoid her posts: Don't read her posts. That's basically the same advice most here have given her about just forgetting Dehlin, and I think it's true. It's hard to take someone seriously who claims to be so sick and tired of Rosebud when they respond to virtually everything she says.

I think it was a misstep early on to allow her to retract the use of her real name. I understand why that decision was made, and I think the motive was compassionate, but it's now created a situation where Dehlin's real name is freely used, but "Rosebud's" real name is not, yet they're both public figures. If both their real names were used, or if both were given pseudonyms, it would now be a fairer situation.

That said, I just tried Googling "John Dehlin." Narrowed my search down to just the past 24 hours. This forum doesn't appear in the search results. Maybe that has something to do with my settings, but I think we can safely say the audience here is small (which does matter if we're saying Rosebud should be excommunicated for defaming JD).

Also, I don't think any definitions used in the lawsuit(s?) can be extracted and applied to Rosebud. In other words, "That was already determined by a court to be defamatory" is meaningless here because it wasn't determined to be so in this situation.

Claiming to "know" based on the perceived credibility of the parties is totally human (I've expressed my own opinions), but it's not a very good method for determining the factual accuracy of something. Certainly, if we've learned anything, shouldn't it be that?

Take the post above mine, for example. I don't see anything there that Rosebud should be prohibited from saying. It might be total horse crap. But it's sort of like Dehlin (allegedly) claiming to "not remember" his physical relationship with Rosebud. (Under oath, no less! Allegedly!) But prove that he doesn't remember. Do I buy it that he doesn't remember it? Not for a second! I think he lied his head off. But I can't prove that and neither can anyone else, that's why he stated it that way. If, in fact, he ever did.

I voted no. They're both public figures. JD apparently has enough lawyers that he could have taken legal action against this board by now if it were possible to do so. I don't believe it is.

As much as I have tended to come down on the side that JD and Rosebud's relationship was mutual, not sexual harassment, I think it's creepy the way the rest of the Ex-Mormon Internet immediately leaps to Dehlin's defense over the smallest and fairest of criticisms. It quickly becomes obvious how many people are leaving the church and turning Dehlin into their new prophet, all the while denying that's exactly what they've done. They will entertain absolutely no criticism of him whatsoever, no matter how mild or well-intended. The lack of self-awareness is staggering. We must not speak ill of the ex-Lord's ex-anointed!

This is the only tiny corner of the ex-Mormon Internet where criticism of Dehlin has not been de facto banned and where Dehlin is treated evenhandedly.

There's always a third option: Shades can remove specific posts on a case-by-case basis. Claiming Dehlin is in cahoots with child molesters is over-the-top, so remove it. A single post can be excised without shutting down the entire conversation. If Rosebud is correct that Dehlin stated under oath that he "doesn't remember" their affair....well c'mon, folks, then he's just bald-faced lying, and it wouldn't be the first instance of Dehlin's dishonesty that's surfaced on this board. Because this board is the only place that isn't overrun by his stans.

It's possible (even probable) that Dehlin isn't trying to wield that level of influence over his audience, but we're all products of our culture. Any honest examination of the ex-Mormon Internet makes it pretty undeniable that hundreds of people are giving him that level of influence. His followers refuse to tolerate a single negative word about him to a degree that parallels Mormon adoration of the prophet. There should be one place where it's possible to criticize him without being immediately and overwhelmingly shouted down.

I like the suggestions above.

Also, I don't understand why it is that Shades seems to tolerant of so many kinds of things until he suddenly isn't, like the case of his recent accusation that a new poster was nothing but an A.I. spammer or some such. I knew it wasn't true, and I think I know who it is, but Shades comes down hard on this person. Now suddenly, after years of allowing Rosebud to post here, we are seeing a campaign to vote her off the island?

WTF, man. She may have her obsessions, but, good grief, it is a little late to decide that we need to intervene by curtailing her right to post here or getting rid of the MegaThread. I get it, Res Ipsa is gone from his moderator post, and now we see a sea change in moderation with more arbitrary heavy-handedness.

[I Have Questions]

I don't think this kind of decision should be made by public vote at all. Shades owns the board. It's not a democracy. The fact that Rosebud has been allowed to post here since before I joined the forum before this one seems like it should be weighed heavily in her favor. Why is banning her suddenly on the table now? And why is it up for a vote?

The vote isn’t on banning Rosebud.

“Should I remove the "The Rosebud MEGATHREAD" and ban accusations of criminal conduct?”

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

I don't think this kind of decision should be made by public vote at all. Shades owns the board. It's not a democracy. The fact that Rosebud has been allowed to post here since before I joined the forum before this one seems like it should be weighed heavily in her favor. Why is banning her suddenly on the table now? And why is it up for a vote?

The vote isn’t on banning Rosebud.

“Should I remove the "The Rosebud MEGATHREAD" and ban accusations of criminal conduct?”

Right. And Rosebud never exactly said that Dehlin is in cahoots with child molesters, but in both cases, that's what's clearly implied. In fact, it's not even just implied about banning Rosebud. Some are calling for her thread to be removed.

A few have even suggested asking Dehlin what he would prefer be done in this situation. What better way to bolster Rosebud's narrative that Dehlin controls the narrative than to literally allow Dehlin to control the narrative?

[Rosebud]

I appreciate Dr. Shades opening this discussion because it’s the right thing to do before making a big decision that affects many voiceless people, some of whom have been sued by Dehlin and others of whom cannot speak due to other forms of relative powerlessness.

That said, I don’t think this should be decided by vote, either. This is about bigger issues than Mormon Discussions and a democracy of Mormon Discussions voters is not representative of the population whose voices are being suppressed.

I actually think it’s pretty phenomenal that I’ve gotten more than a 10% vote from this crowd. What if, for example, the voters included Josh Weed (who has actually met me in the real world and has a better idea of who I am than the posters here) and the women who reveled in the opportunity to have their suffering momentarily seen by the public when they commented on this Josh Weed Facebook thread about male public figures in exMormonism: https://www.Facebook.com/josh.weed3/pos ... Z3ynTwKJDl

If these were my voters, I’d have a high majority.

Interestingly, and since it’s associated, a few of the evidentiary documents I added to my Affidavit that was silenced by Judge Faust in the Kamp case (even though Dehlin committed bald-faced perjury while under oath) offered evidence that, back in 2012, the board president and I were trying to take actions to prevent the same phenomenon Josh Weed is more currently trying to expose in the exMormon community, and that Dehlin was resisting the actions we were trying to take.

Think of all the suffering that could have been prevented in the exMormon community if the board president and I had been successful….

Yet here we are, over a decade later, still dealing with a situation in which the exMormon women are exploited and voiceless.

A vote is not the right way to decide this.

My voice represents many silent voices.

True, Dehlin’s history of using donor money to sue exMormons does make allowing me to speak against him publicly a risk. And the possibility that he spent well over a million dollars on the Kamp case alone is daunting.

That said, I don’t see how a message board or any of its moderators could possibly be liable because I’m allowed freedom of speech regarding a public figure. I’m simply exercising a first amendment right. I haven’t defamed, slandered or committed libel because I’ve told the truth. But, if I had done any of those things, it would be me, personally, who would be liable — not Mormon Discussions.

[Rosebud]

I wonder what female Mormon historians like Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (who coined the well-known line “Well-behaved women seldom make history”) would think of the deletion of this important slice of women’s history in Mormonism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Thatcher_Ulrich

What would her vote be?

[Rosebud]

I didn’t say John was in cahoots with people involved in organized child sexual abuse, and John’s actions — not my words — implied that something was wrong.

I am not responsible for what John’s actions imply. He is responsible for what his actions imply. This distinction is important.

Again, I reported on John’s podcasting actions regarding “Satanic Ritual Abuse” (again, dumb and harmful red herring), and the manner in which the dates his podcasts were recorded and published corresponded with important dates in the Does’ lawsuit against Nelson’s daughter that used discrediting “Satanic Ritual Abuse” as a defense. I provided documentation and court filings and they are linked in my signature.

It is not me who implies that something is wrong here. It is John’s actions that imply that something is wrong here. I am not responsible for John’s actions just because I point them out.

I added to this report about John’s actions that imply that something is wrong, the fact that Kamp told me that Dehlin told her that he has an agreement with an “entity” to not allow victims of organized child sexual abuse to come on his podcast. Again, I am not an eye witness of this because I was not there. This is Kamp’s report to me.

Added together, sure, these actions by John (the podcasting in date correspondence with important dates in the Nelson lawsuit and the claim of an agreement with an “entity, ”) imply that something is wrong.

But, again, it is John’s actions that imply this. Not me.

I have no personal information regarding the matter aside from what I have shared and the documentation I have provided and I work to be clear about what I know and don’t know. I am clear about who my sources are so that people can make their own decisions about any implications of John’s actions.

[Rosebud]

Also, I am criticized for the reality that the breadth of the topics I address here has expanded over time. This is true.

But the explanation for this expansion is different than the explanations that are commonly leveled at me.

The explanation is simple: it has slowly become safer for me to post about these topics, little by little. These topics were with me in my mind from the beginning of the time I posted here and were even my incentive for working for Mormon Stories in the first place, before I even knew this board existed.

And now that I have shared a little more about myself, it should make sense that these topics were always with me, because, again, my family is from the center of Mormon sex and money power and these topics have had a huge impact on my life.

I was born into these topics. Why, on earth, would these topics have not always been with me and be important to me? To think I just suddenly developed a need to post about them because I wasn’t getting what I wanted from Dehlin or posters on this board is to give Dehlin and the posters here far too much credit. I pay little heed to posters here (as should I be evident by now). I am working off of my agenda, which has to do with my life and my family, not your agendas. And Dehlin is just a d*** public figure who is causing a lot of problems, in my opinion.

But what has happened in my family is very important to me and is a core part of who I am. Plus, these patterns of harm are far more important to Utah and Mormonism in the present than Dehlin is.

And, in case you haven’t yet recognized it, I am smarter than a cucumber. I have slowly expanded my topics based on the changes in the political climate, events such as Tim Ballard and Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes’ stupid movie Sounds of Freedom that gets people to believe organized child sex parties only happen south of the border (another red herring), the Nelson case alleging child sex parties in Utah, the BSA child sex abuse lawsuit with tens of thousands of plaintiffs, and organized sex abuse arrests made in Utah.

If I had shared my entire thought process from day one, I would have only offered fodder to the “crazy,” “histrionic” and “mentally troubled” narrative that Dehlin was already busily trying to sell.

So I have opened up and expanded my topics bit by bit, as I have felt it was right to do so.

This makes sense because this is the actual explanation for the change in scope.

[Kishkumen]

If Dehlin has threatened legal action against the board, then we probably have no choice. Otherwise, I say we move the MegaThread to the Telestial forum, where personal attacks are allowed.

[Moksha]

I wonder what female Mormon historians like Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (who coined the well-known line “Well-behaved women seldom make history”) would think of the deletion of this important slice of women’s history in Mormonism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Thatcher_Ulrich

What would her vote be?

What would Charles Darwin say if it was not moved?